Post-Activity Report: DHSS Organisational Culture and ... UNCLASSIFIED . Post-Activity Report: DHSS Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop . Christina Stothard, Mirela Stjelja,

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Post-Activity Report: DHSS Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop

Christina Stothard, Mirela Stjelja, Tiffany Fischer, Maya Drobnjak and Steven Talbot

Land Division

Defence Science and Technology Organisation

DSTO-TN-1212

ABSTRACT The Organisational Culture and Performance workshop, held during the Defence Human Science Symposium (2012), provided a forum for discussing the challenges associated with identifying an ideal organisational culture in Defence, and then measuring such a culture. This post-activity report summarises the outcomes of the workshop hosted by the DSTO Army Learning Organisation (ALO) team. Professor Karen Watkins (University of Georgia) facilitated the workshop (applying Action Learning principles) to generate critical reflection and questioning of Defence organisational culture. The workshop highlighted the complexity of defining an aspirational organisational culture (given culture has both intangible and tangible elements). The tangible elements of organisational culture can be measured directly. Developing measures for the intangible, more abstract elements would require more effort (expertise, time and resources). Both elements are needed to generate a full understanding in order to track Defence organisational culture towards its aspirational state. The stakeholders also identified the importance of collaboration and active information and knowledge sharing in order to generate a Defence wide understanding of this area. Finally, we offer some reflections on the limitations of the workshop design.

RELEASE LIMITATION

Approved for public release

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Published by Land Division DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation 506 Lorimer St Fishermans Bend, Victoria 3207 Australia Telephone: 1300 DEFENCE (1300 333 363) Fax: (03) 9626 7999 © Commonwealth of Australia 2013 AR-015-734 August 2013 APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Post-Activity Report: DHSS Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop

Executive Summary The Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) Army Learning Organisation (ALO) team conducted a workshop for Australian Defence Force (ADF) stakeholders working in the area of organisational culture and change in order to address two main gaps we identified: one, the lack of awareness and collaboration by key stakeholders working in this area; and two, an absence of a clear definition of what, exactly, makes up an ‘ideal’ Defence organisational culture. In identifying gaps between the ideal state and the current state of organisational culture, further work can then be done to develop targeted measures to monitor and reduce these critical gaps, and focus attention on these key aspects of organisational culture. The workshop was structured to generate critical reflection and discussion about organisational culture, and associated initiatives within Defence. Prof Karen Watkins (University of Georgia) used the principles of Action Learning to encourage participants to critically reflect on their experiences, and to generate thoughtful questioning of their shared assumptions. Using Schein’s (1992; 2004) definition of organisational culture, the factors generated within the workshop were synthesised into either tangible or intangible elements of organisational culture. Tangible elements can be directly measured using information that is currently available within Defence. For example, one indicator of achieving the “ideal” Defence culture would be a reduction in work-related mental health issues. Generating direct measures of a culture’s artefacts and espoused values (that is, the tangible elements) is relatively straight forward. In contrast, generating measures of the intangible cultural elements such as shared assumptions requires significantly more expertise, effort, time and resources. As an example, an intangible element indicating an ‘ideal’ Defence organisational culture would be “leaders having a greater diversity of thought”. This is a far more difficult concept to measure than ”work-related mental health issues”. For example, what exactly would diversity of thought look like? What does this mean? How would you recognise diverse thought(s) if you saw it in

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

practice? Developing these more abstract, intangible concepts into concrete measures requires expertise and resources (time and effort). Consequently, measuring organisational culture may take a staged approach, initially measuring the direct observable aspects of culture, while supporting the development of the measures to address the more abstract cultural elements. Both the concrete and the more abstract elements are needed to generate a full understanding of Defence’s organisational culture. Outcomes from the workshop indicate that there is a consensus around some key indicators of success for Pathway to Change1 along with some of the major issues with which Defence needs to contend (e.g. political pressure, media, and changing perceptions). In particular, the outcomes of these activities may direct stakeholders towards the most useful avenues for implementing and measuring organisational cultural change. The workshop’s outcomes confirmed that measuring, monitoring, or evaluating organisational culture is not an easy task, particularly within an organisation like the Australian Defence Organisation (ADO), with its different services and subsequent subcultures. The workshop presented a valuable opportunity for sharing knowledge and raising awareness of different cultural change initiatives cross Defence. Primarily, the workshop outcomes will provide a useful starting point for further exploration of how to best measure and monitor ADO culture. This workshop contributed to improving overall efficiency within Defence by avoiding duplication of work. Finally, the workshop offered a unique opportunity to build networks and strengthen existing associations. This will support current and future initiatives, providing original and relevant contributions to the ADF’s goal of growing a healthy organisational culture.

1 ‘Pathway to Change’ is the Defence initiative that encompasses the various organisational changes needed to address the many recommendations generated from Reviews: the Review of the Defence Accountability Framework (the Black Review), the Review of the Use of Alcohol in the Australian Defence Force (ADF), the ADF Personnel Conduct Review, the Review of the Use of Social Media in Defence, the Review of Defence Australian Public Service (APS) Women’s Leadership Pathways, the Review of the Management of Incidents and Complaints, and the Review into the Treatment of Women in the ADF.

UNCLASSIFIED DSTO-TN-1212

UNCLASSIFIED

Contents

ACRONYMS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Organisational Culture: Current understanding ................................................ 1 1.2 Summary: Defence organisational science and research .................................. 2

1.2.1 Gaps identified: Defence organisational science and research ......... 2 1.3 Workshop Aims ......................................................................................................... 3

2. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Participants ................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Workshop Structure ................................................................................................. 4

3. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Group Brainstorming Activity ............................................................................... 5

3.1.1 Group brainstorming activity: Results, synthesis and analysis. ....... 7 3.1.2 Measuring tangible elements of organisational culture: “Picking

the low hanging fruit” ............................................................................ 8 3.1.3 Measuring intangible elements of organisational culture:

“Making the invisible, visible”. ........................................................... 10 3.1.4 Measuring Defence aspirational culture: Summary ......................... 12

3.2 Group Activity: Discussion ................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Group discussion: Summary and synthesis ...................................... 14

4. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 15 4.1 Workshop reflections ............................................................................................. 16

5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 17

APPENDIX A: INITIAL SCOPE OF WORKSHOP ....................................................... 19

APPENDIX B: LIST OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES AND PRESENTERS ............. 21 B.1 Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop

Attendees ......................................................................................... 21 B.2 Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop

Presenters ......................................................................................... 21 B.3 Presenters: ........................................................................................ 22 B.4 Workshop Structure ....................................................................... 22

B.4.1 Session One – Measuring Organisational culture ....... 22 B.4.2 Session Two – Changing culture, changing

performance ...................................................................... 23

APPENDIX C: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT SLIDES ................................................ 25


UNCLASSIFIED

C.1 Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop PowerPoint ...................................................................................... 25

APPENDIX D: GROUP BRAINSTORMING ACTIVITY ............................................ 51 D.1 WORKSHOP “Organisational Culture and Performance in

Defence“ ........................................................................................... 51


UNCLASSIFIED

Acronyms

ADC Australian Defence College ADF Australian Defence Force ADFA Australian Defence Force Academy ADO Australian Defence Organisation ALO Army Learning Organisation ALOQ Army Learning Organisation Questionnaire APS Australian Public Service DHSS Defence Human Sciences Symposium DSPPR Directorate of Strategic Personnel Planning and Research DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation PAR Post Activity Report PtC Pathway to Change


UNCLASSIFIED

This page is intentionally blank


UNCLASSIFIED 1

1. Introduction

Recently the Australian Defence Organisation’s (ADO) culture has been under the spotlight, with a plethora of reviews generating much public interest in attitudes, behaviours and practices within Defence. These reviews include: the Review of the Defence Accountability Framework (the Black Review), the Review of the Use of Alcohol in the Australian Defence Force (ADF), the ADF Personnel Conduct Review, the Review of the Use of Social Media in Defence, the Review of Defence Australian Public Service (APS) Women’s Leadership Pathways, the Review of the Management of Incidents and Complaints, and the Review into the Treatment of Women in the ADF. In order to address the recommendations within all the reviews, Defence has implemented a cultural reform programme – the Pathway to Change: Evolving Defence Culture. As a “strategy for cultural change and reinforcement“ (Department of Defence, 2012), Pathway to Change draws our attention to behaviour and values, and their perceived cultural underpinnings, and in particular the damaging effects of problematic behaviour which violates societal and organisational expectations. Pathway to Change consolidates the series of recommendations suggested in the reviews, and suggests the strategies to be implemented across Defence. Improving and monitoring of organisational culture in Defence is seen as a crucial step to implementing Pathway to Change. Defining and measuring organisational culture allows us to determine the extent to which Defence is demonstrating behaviours which are aligned to its own and societal expectations. It is important for Defence to clearly define what organisational culture is, and the desired end-state, in order to determine what needs to be measured and monitored. Organisational culture is a complex concept with many definitions within the research literature. According to Schein (1992), organisational culture is more than organisational values and behaviour, it also includes artefacts (concrete elements identified as part of culture), as well as the critical underlying assumptions that shape behaviour. All aspects need to be addressed to progress with organisational cultural change. 1.1 Organisational Culture: Current understanding

A review of literature on organisational culture across multidisciplinary domains shows that there are many and varied definitions of culture. However, there are commonalities across the multiple definitions. The commonality is that culture has components of both:

• Tangible aspects, for example, concrete and identifiable elements such as uniforms, building style or structures, timetables or schedules.

• Intangible aspects, which are not directly or easily observable; the shared expectations and assumptions within a workplace that, for example, underpin that “this is just the way things are done here”.


UNCLASSIFIED 2

We use Schein’s (1992; 2004) definition of organisational culture as a basis of our work within the Army Learning Organisation (ALO) task. Schein (1992; 2004) identified three distinct levels of organisational culture:

1. Artefacts: the visible elements of culture which can be recognised by those outside the organisation e.g. military uniforms, equipment, buildings, marching style.

2. Espoused values: an organisation’s stated values and rules of behaviour. For example, these values are articulated within Army’s mission statements and doctrine, 21st Century Soldier.

3. Assumptions: the deeply embedded assumptions within the culture about how and why we do what we do. This is found within personnel’s own understanding, their mental models or shared understandings about their organisation. The assumptions under which we operate are often hard to articulate and identify.

So, by definition, organisational culture has an intangible aspect making it difficult to directly observe or address. It is the third element of Schien’s definition – the shared assumptions - that contributes to the inertia that is found within organisational culture. Schein (2004) and many others within the academic domain acknowledge that this aspect is not easily addressed. 1.2 Summary: Defence organisational science and research

Army Learning Organisation’s (ALO) role in investigating Army’s (learning) culture as part of Defence’s science and research capability (that is, as part of Defence Science and Technology Organisation) gives us a unique view of this area. Since 2008, we have scanned the literature across Defence, within Australia and internationally, and across the multidisciplinary academic and research domains. We investigated the different Services and Defence-wide approaches to defining and measuring organisational culture by reviewing the available documentation. It became obvious that whilst there was much worthwhile and useful work going on, such as Navy Next Generation, Adaptive Army and Air Force’s programmes, there was not a wide spread awareness nor a cohesive approach to defining and measuring organisational culture. The opportunity to engage with key stakeholders within Defence, including Army, Air Force and the research arm of the APS, at the Defence Human Sciences Symposium 2012, appeared to be an important step in establishing an awareness of what is happening across Defence. The DSTO ALO team was uniquely placed to facilitate this workshop, as we are a part of an independent research organisation within Defence, working in this space yet not directly part of the Pathway to Change. Thus, while we are part of Defence, we also have access to significant and varied knowledge bases within and outside Defence. 1.2.1 Gaps identified: Defence organisational science and research

This workshop was designed to bring together ADO stakeholders currently working in this area to address the gap that we identified, namely, difficulties in accessing other’s


UNCLASSIFIED 3

work in organisational culture. There are no forums or easily accessible opportunities to engage with other stakeholders. There is much excellent work being conducted in implementing and addressing organisational culture issues yet little awareness of their synergies and potential for collaboration. A second gap that has been identified is the lack of a clear articulation of what, exactly, makes up an ideal Defence organisational culture. Culture has been treated as a given; as an assumed, known, static phenomenon within the Defence corporate literature. There have been many characteristics (problems) attributed to the culture yet there has been very little examination of exactly what this means, nor what an aspirational Defence culture would look like. While we use Schien’s (1992; 2004) definition within our own work in the social sciences, we have noted that, across the plethora of Defence corporate literature, the components of an ideal organisational culture has not been clearly articulated. If the concept of an ideal culture is not well articulated it makes developing measures of difficult. Providing this forum for the key stakeholders allows for discussion about these issues to start. 1.3 Workshop Aims

In light of these observed gaps, the workshop focused on the following three issues:

1. Provide a forum for sharing of Defence organisational cultural programs and implementations;

2. Explore the aspirational or ideal Defence culture generated by key stakeholders working within this area; and

3. Explore stakeholders’ thoughts on factors effecting organisational culture within Defence.

These three aims were distilled from our initial questions concerning organisational culture within Defence (see Appendix A for the initial list of questions we generated as part of the workshop development). The aim of the workshop post-activity report is to capture the discussions and outcomes from the group activities, so as to inform key stakeholders and share the expertise found within the ADO. The secondary aim of the post-activity report is to use the outcomes as a basis for further work in this area, to start to address the larger questions about what it means to define and measure Defence organisational culture.

2. Methodology

The workshop and its activities were designed using the Action Learning approach. Action Learning is premised on the importance of learning from experience and through critical reflection. It is particularly useful when addressing workplace problems or issues


UNCLASSIFIED 4

in complex situations and conditions, especially when these issues do not have easy or merely technical solutions. As Zuber-Skerritt notes:

Action learning, in brief, is learning from concrete experience and critical reflection on that experience – through group discussion, trial and error, discovery, and learning from and with each other (2002, p.114-115).

In order to fulfil workshop aims the workshop was structured to provide:

1. An overview of the theoretical construction of organisational culture and measuring culture change using current understanding in research and practice;

2. Defence presentations on current organisation culture work e.g. Implementing Pathway to Change, and,

3. Group activities/discussion. 2.1 Participants

The workshop comprised of 20 civilian, Defence and military personnel. The attendees had previously worked, or currently work in the area of organisational culture within Defence or academia. As part of the DHSS, the workshop provided a rare opportunity to bring together a number of experts or practitioners dealing with issues related to Defence culture. 2.2 Workshop Structure

Participants were invited to share introductory comments so as to promote group rapport and discussion. Following welcoming and introductory remarks, workshop norms were stated (i.e. leave rank at the door, keep conversations to an unclassified level, encourage honest and open communication etc.) The workshop outline was then described (i.e. workshop aims and agenda). The workshop was divided into two sessions (see Appendix A.4 for full workshop structure):

Session 1 - Measuring Organisational culture a. Presentations from Prof. Watkins2 and Services b. Group brainstorming activity

Session 2 - Changing culture, changing performance c. Presentations from Defence d. Group discussion

2 Prof Watkins is the Director of the School of Leadership and Lifelong Learning at the University of Georgia, is a partner in Partners for Learning And Leadership, and is a distinguished scholar specialising in adult learning, human resource and organisational learning.


UNCLASSIFIED 5

The outcomes from the group activities (brain storming and group discussion) will be considered in the next section.

3. Results

The outcomes of the workshop were generated from the group activities described below. Discussions centred on issues concerning the implementation, monitoring and measurement of culture change initiatives; leadership; and, the relevance of subcultures. 3.1 Group Brainstorming Activity

As noted above, workshop participants were presented with the following question: ‘Looking backward from perfect, what specifically would be different if you have successfully implemented the Pathway to Change?’ In acknowledgement of the gap that often exists between espoused (or rhetorical) and actual measures for success, participants were specifically asked to think of both:

• Objective and subjective indicators of success, and

• Espoused and enacted indications of success.

Note takers captured group discussion, producing a list of indicators of success. From this list of indicators of success (64 statements in total, see Appendix C), the participants were given a set of five red-dot stickers and asked to assign each sticker to one of the statements. This activity produced a prioritised list of statements which represented a ‘perfect’ organisational culture. The top three priorities (statements with the highest sticker assignment) were:

1. “Greater diversity of thought in leadership“,

2. “Lower incidence of mental health issues“, and

3. “Open and fair culture“. Some other important indicators of success identified included:

• “Clear performance expectations“

• “Leaders who facilitate learning“

• “Legitimate respect (up & down) “

• “Retain/Attract high talent“

• “High trust“

• “Situation- match talent and job“


UNCLASSIFIED 6

• “More female leaders“

• “Personal Accountability“

• “Have a strategic plan“

• “Knowledge easy to access“

• “No subcultures over Defence culture“

• “Diversity is valued“

• “People want to belong/feel included“ A review of the statements produced by the brainstorming activity highlighted the following points for consideration:

• Leadership

• Gender

• Management Practices

• Communication

• Organisational Ethos

• Staff Characteristics

• Knowledge Management These statements represent the main themes identified by the workshop participants as contributing to the perceived success of Pathway to Change. The themes also shared many similarities and points of overlap. These themes provide a good starting point to establish what is important to measure and monitor during Defence cultural change.

Key outcome For workshop participants the aspirational Defence organisational culture (achieved through the successful implementation of Pathway to Change) would see a reduction in mental health issues and leaders who exhibit a greater diversity of thought, facilitate learning and set clear performance expectations. These leaders would be situated within an organisation that has a high trust environment, and can attract and retain high talent to the right job. This organisation would further support, encourage and expect an open and fair culture, with personnel who are accountable, show legitimate respect and consideration regardless of rank, position, or gender. People would have a sense of belonging and inclusion, where diversity is valued and where organisational culture of Defence has priority over subcultures (there are no “tribes“ within Defence).

These points indicate that there is a level of consensus over what successful implementation of the Pathway to Change initiative would look like. It also highlights


UNCLASSIFIED 7

some of the goals of stakeholders and Defence as a whole, in achieving their cultural intent. These statements could be used as the basis for developing a measure of an “ideal” Defence organisational culture. The process of developing scales or measures in order to measure an intangible phenomena is well documented and described within the Social Sciences (Streiner and Norman, 2003; 2008). The ability to measure organisational culture is important because it provides a way for Defence to monitor their progress towards intended targets, as well as capture cultural change. 3.1.1 Group brainstorming activity: Results, synthesis and analysis.

The outcomes from the group brainstorming activity – using the aspirations within Pathway to Change as the ’perfect‘ organisational culture to reach back from – show that participants within the workshop considered a wide variety of both tangible and intangible aspects when considering the question. Sixty-four statements naming various aspects of organisational culture were made. Participants’ generated factors that went far beyond the behaviours and values described in Pathway to Change. Interestingly, the most highly ranked factor was “greater diversity of thought in leadership”. This is an intangible element, at the level of shared assumptions using Schien’s definition of organisational culture, yet it was judged to be the critical factor in generating the aspirational organisational culture. In contrast, the second ranked factor “reduced incidence of mental health issues” would be considered to be a tangible factor, and thus, easily and directly measured. The third factor “open and fair culture” essentially encapsulates the whole concept of culture, and would need to be explored further to untangle the various tangible and intangible aspects. The 64 items (tangible to intangible, individual to organisation-wide,) generated from the group also shows how culture can be seen through multiple lenses, and across multiple levels. The elements generated from the group activity were synthesised and then grouped using Schein’s three levels of organisational culture.

1. Tangible

1. Artefacts (concrete, observable practices that are readily identified as belonging to the culture or organisation)

• Staff Characteristics

• Knowledge Management

2. Espoused values (stated)

• Management Practices

• Communication

2. Intangible

3. Shared assumptions (unquestioned practices)

• Leadership


UNCLASSIFIED 8

• Gender3

• Organisational Ethos The breadth of organisational factors (and the coverage across the whole spectrum of Schein’s definition) generated by Defence stakeholders working within this domain, shows that despite the lack of a documented organisational culture definition, there are useful mental models of culture operating within Defence. However, these mental models of organisational culture have not yet been captured in the formal corporate documentation. Following the workshop, the 64 items generated were categorised into either tangible (directly measureable) or intangible (not directly measureable) (see table 1 and table 2 below). The stakeholder-generated markers of aspirational culture were (almost) equally spread between both tangible and intangible elements. Each participant was given 3 “votes” and could then distribute their votes to any of the items generated. The votes were totalled, and thus the items were ranked by the stakeholders. Developing useful and coherent measures of Defence culture will need metrics for both concrete and tangible aspects of culture together with indicators of indirect, abstract and intangible aspects of culture. Relatively more effort is required to develop measures for the abstract and intangible aspects of culture, yet this effort will be rewarded by providing more useable and comprehensive information on Defence culture. 3.1.2 Measuring tangible elements of organisational culture: Picking the low hanging fruit

Measuring and monitoring organisational artefacts and espoused values (the tangible aspects) provides an indication of how the organisation is tracking. Ideally, this would demonstrate that Defence is both paying attention to organisational cultural elements (“to be seen to be doing something”) as well as demonstrating real improvements in organisational culture and performance. For example, Defence would show improvements in organisational culture by:

• tracking the changing rates of reported work-related mental health;

• the increased use of ICT; and

• showing a greater diversity of demographic characteristics in ranks and roles.

3 ‘Gender’ here is referring to the assumptions and unquestioned practices associated with how gender is treated within Defence and wider society.


UNCLASSIFIED 9

Table 1: Tangible aspects: Direct measures for quick implementation of monitoring organisational culture

Tangible (directly measureable) Suggested direct measures – current and available

Reduction of mental health issues

Incidence /rate of work-related mental health reports, rates of return to work after stress leave, incidence of stress leave, resolution of stress leave.

Clear performance expectations Documented performance standards, rate of performance managements,

Leaders who facilitate learning

Rate of subordinate’s learning and training, and promotion opportunities, time and resources given to subordinates. Rate of training course completed by subordinates.

Retain / attract high talent Rates of retention and recruitment of best candidates

Situation – match talent and job Rates of retention, and rate of turn-over in particular work or positions with high demand

More female leaders Rates of gender distribution across ranks and roles.

Have a strategic plan Presence, circulation and engagement of a strategic plan

Knowledge easy to access

ICT access, knowledge repositories accessed, hits on web-based browsers within Defence, access to libraries, to doctrine, to TTPs, to senior experts for advice (do they have an open door).

Commonality of language Extent of duplication or translation across commands, rates of miscommunications or clarification required.

Communication (up & down)

ICT access and formal communications systems accessed or used. Informal communications, more intangible and therefore harder to measure.

Sound management practices Measured with good communication, indicators of management ‘best practice’

Redundancy Level of redundancy across systems and of knowledge bases.

Less bureaucratisation Level of hierarchy, auditing the number of processes within organisation that cover work elements.

Greater competitions for jobs Number of applications for a position; job selection and specification.

Interdepartmental connectedness The number of shared work practices, training processes, collaborative work conducted.

Less scandals (published events) Frequency of Defence mentioned negatively within the media.

Succession planning Formal and informal succession planning for transfer of knowledge within Defence.

Familiarity with vision (clear vision) Extent personnel understand or familiar with Defence’s vision.

Genuine equality across organisation Is there equal representation of all gender, ethnicity, and other minorities across all ranks and roles?


UNCLASSIFIED 10

Career development Rates of career progression, and transfer between roles, ranks, retention.

Reduced need for dispute resolution services

Rates of dispute resolution at each step.

No more glass ceilings Rates of gender, ethnicity and minorities distribution across ranks and roles.

Increased flexibility

Rate of both asking for and successfully accessing flexible work arrangements – part-time, work from home etc.

Collaboration across sections Rate of cooperative training, or projects, or outcomes Reduced absenteeism Rate of absenteeism over time

The direct measures will provide pertinent information on the observable aspects of Defence’s organisational culture; this can be used to start to address (and to be seen to address) various cultural issues. However, by themselves, direct measures do not provide complete measures of organisational culture. Developing measures for less tangible aspects of culture is critical, in order to demonstrate shifts in leadership, in organisational ethos (such as trust, respect and accountability) and gender issues (assumptions about roles and responsibilities within Defence). These elements – the shared assumptions – underpin much of the observed artefacts and the overt behaviour within an organisation. 3.1.3 Measuring intangible elements of organisational culture: Making the invisible, visible

Intangible elements (within Table 2) can only, by definition, be observed indirectly. “Leadership”, “trust” and “accountability” are elements of organisational culture, and we have standards of behaviour that Defence aspires to for these elements. Yet what exactly do we mean by “trust”? Which aspects of trust are important? Engagement? Reliability? Honesty? Is trust a quality within a relationship – invested in the link itself – or is it a quality invested by the person trusting, or in the person who is trusted? Once you examine these intangible elements, such as leadership, trust and respect, you can see that these concepts are complex and multidimensional. No one single measurable and observable aspect of the concept will be a sufficient metric to encompass the whole. For example, we can define trust as being made up of engagement; that higher trust within Defence will lead to higher levels of engagement, and the converse. Disengagement is indicating a lack of trust. A direct measurement of lack of engagement is, say, rates of separation. So is trust within Defence best measured solely by the rate of separation? We would argue that while engagement may be a part of trust, engagement is not equivalent only to trust. Thus separation rates are not a sufficient measure of trust within Defence. Trust within Army is more complex than just (dis)engagement or separation rates. Trust is generated through building relationships, communication and perceptions of reliability, integrity and honesty. There are many other factors that should be considered when examining trust within organisations.


UNCLASSIFIED 11

Table 2: Intangible culture measures and ranking

Intangible (abstracted measures) Partipants’ votes Greater diversity of thought in leadership 11 Open and fair culture 7 Legitimate respect ( up & down) 5 High trust 5 Personal accountability 3 No subcultures over Defence culture 3 Diversity is valued 3 People want to belong / feel included 3 Simplify 2 Forgiveness of mistakes 2 Multiple definitions of “good” 2 Supportive culture for getting the job done 2 Outcome focused versus process 2 Make use of informal networks 2 Respect ( up & down) 1 Stronger perception of support 1 Motivated to speak and act 1 Recognition 1 More resilience 1 Respect for technical expertise 1 Ask why regardless of rank 1 Stronger individual commitment 1 Cultural volunteers 0 Greater political credibility 0 Firm and fair response to different behaviour 0 Gender neutrality 0 Informal conversations in more positive climate 0 No more / less risk aversion 0 Creative problem solvers 0 Creating knowledge 0

Defence has developed measures for establishing such intangible elements such as leadership, morale and engagement with the PULSE, Defence Attitude Survey and we have developed our own – Army Learning Organisation Questionnaire (ALOQ). We defined a concept, for example, leaders that support learning, and then expanded it, after exploring what this might look like in action. In order to expand an abstract concept, such as ‘leadership that supports learning’ we adapted these questions as providing a measure. For example, we asked the extent that personnel agreed or disagreed with the following: “My supervisor:

• Usually support requests for learning and training opportunities.

• Share information quickly and easily.


UNCLASSIFIED 12

• Empower those to help carry out Defence’s vision.

• Mentor and coach those they lead.

• Continually look for opportunities to learn.

• Ensure that all actions are consistent with Defence’s values.” From results (the extent respondents agreed strongly or disagreed) we then inferred the level of support for learning within their workplace. There are measures addressing some intangible elements of organisational culture currently available within Defence (e.g. ALOQ, PULSE, DAS), however, these measures may not map directly onto those identified by the stakeholders. The initial analysis of the intangible elements found that they could be grouped into three broad constructs; leadership, organisational ethos and gender (or diversity). Developing indirect measures of the most pertinent elements of organisational culture would be a significant first step. So, for example, we would explore what “leadership”, “organisational ethos” and “diversity/gender” would mean within Defence by examining and expanding our understanding within this context. We would build on what work has already been done within Defence on these issues, and expand to include the most useful measures. This process would require an investment of time, effort, and expertise. Developing appropriate empirical measures for intangible elements is most definitely possible, and useful, in order to provide information on otherwise unknown or unobserved cultural elements; however it is not necessarily quick or simple. Once these indirect measures are developed and combined with the direct and tangible measures of organisational culture, we can triangulate the results; providing an understanding of the whole, complex, multi-dimensional phenomena that is Defence’s organisational culture. Using a combined approach – of direct and indirect measures – allows for a thorough and consistent understanding of Defence’s achievement of its aspirational organisational culture. 3.1.4 Measuring Defence aspirational culture: Summary

Measuring all aspects of organisational culture is critical in order to understand what and how culture influences organisational outcomes and performance. Combining both tangible and intangible elements of organisational culture allows for a greater depth of understanding, however, the effort needed to develop measures for both aspects is not equivalent. The direct, tangible measures can provide a relatively quick and easy assessment of a limited range of organisational culture. The more critical understanding of organisational culture is in the intangible elements, the shared assumptions that shape personnel’s attitudes and behaviours, and measuring these require commensurately more expertise, time and efforts. A staged approach to developing metrics for organisational culture would allow for the initial data gathering and reporting cycle to be met, and ideally, allow for the time and resources necessary for the development of the more difficult aspects to be addressed.


UNCLASSIFIED 13

The next section describes the guided group discussions that were generated immediately after the Defence presentations on Pathway to Change. The discussion, while free flowing, was guided and moderated using Action Learning principles in order to generate reflection and questioning, and promoting learning from other’s experiences and thoughts. 3.2 Group Activity: Discussion

All participants contributed to lively group discussions throughout the course of the workshop. Presented below are the major topics and statements covered within the discussions. Implementation, measure and monitor adaptive culture initiatives:

• Using measures like worker retention or engagement.

• Focus on what we value.

• Need to track research and report back to participants/personnel. Extensive reviews should also be summarised.

• It is important to acknowledge good things. Question: How to track “good behaviour”? It is easy to see bad behaviour e.g. through complaints process, but where is the visibility of good behaviour? For example, how can you see the desired behaviours such as supportive leadership?

• Changing the narrative, how they talk will help culture change. “We shape culture but are also shaped by it”. Stakeholders also acknowledged that things can also change at different rates – so what is staying the same or lagging?

Leadership in guiding and generating organisational culture:

• It’s important how you accept criticism and acknowledge feedback. Personnel need to believe in and feel good about leadership to make allowances for occasional failures.

• Query proposed: How would senior leaders perceive the group’s activity, or would they value the same things as lower ranks? Would there be a significant difference between perceptions of senior leadership in Defence and the rest of the organisation?

• There should be joint ownership of behaviour, not just left up to leadership.

• Enforcement is punitive.

• Competition over resources would be less with more balanced reward, and resource allocation.

• Need to address “what’s in it for me” when looking at any change initiative or you may have a case of: “when good ideas go bad”.


UNCLASSIFIED 14

Interplay between “a Defence organisational culture” and “many Defence organisational cultures” (subcultures).

• Issues: subcultures potentially have a greater influence on personnel behaviour than the organisational culture. People find greater profit in deviating from norms to subculture (which may be an unintended consequence of strategy). A subculture can have more direct influence over people than the overarching culture.

Issues with the media and changing perceptions within, and outside Defence:

• Deputy Chief of Army initiative: encouraging and promoting good news stories. Example: fact sheets (positive points under themes) as a way of acknowledging success (ADFA). Spreading this out to all of Defence may be valuable for retention rates.

• Organisation and people are feeling smashed-good people as well. At a tipping point. People are tired of bad media. There has been a focus on cadets because they were being targeted by the media however stats show that bad media didn’t effect recruitment.

• ADFA dealing with some of the same issues as universities. Universities push back against ADFA: ownership and promulgation of data, and potential damage to universities brand. Universities have not wanted to collaborate with ADO to examine university student’s behaviour in comparison to ADFA students. The point was also made that there is limited ability for external comparison (of Defence with other organisations).

• Participants also highlighted that there seemed to be less good news that wasn’t about disaster relief.

Views: No news is good news. “You don’t wait for news, you make news”.

• Within a strong culture biases can develop that cancel out external views/input.

• Reviews are costly but legitimise problem. (They bring attention).

3.2.1 Group discussion: Summary and synthesis

Results from the group brainstorming activity and the discussion demonstrate that there is a consensus around some key indicators of success for Pathway to Change along with some of the major issues (media, political pressure) with which Defence needs to contend. The key themes that were repeatedly raised included issues surrounding:

• Implementing, measurement and monitoring culture.

• Leadership.

• Subculture(s) within Defence.

• Media and changing perceptions within, and outside Defence.


UNCLASSIFIED 15

Many of these issues raised and discussed are intertwined, such as the interaction between leadership, subcultures and changing perception of culture within and outside Defence. A reoccurring theme was questioning drivers for organisational cultural change; is Defence changing for the sake of change, in order to be seen to be addressing deficiencies by media and by Government, as well as addressing issues that need to be addressed. Stakeholders then expanded on how and why Defence, from their point of view, has responded to the Reviews and media scrutiny. The discussion certainly promoted sharing of views and information across the workshop, which allowed for dialogue surrounding the political environment within which Defence operates. The wider political and social context of Defence indeed shapes organisational culture. Defence is nested within Australian Government and the wider cultural landscape. The discussion reflected on the interplay between Defence’s organisational culture, Service’s own organisational cultures, and the broader Australian culture. Stakeholders were questioning the assumption of a single over-arching Defence culture, rather, the nested nature of specific workplace’s cultures and the impact of measuring and monitoring culture within this multitude of cultures within Defence.

4. Conclusion

The workshop has enabled an exploration of some of the major cultural issues confronting ADO from the perspective of those working in this area. The scope was relevant to issues both internal and external to Defence. Group discussions also brought current initiatives to light that could be of benefit to the wider Defence community and warrants further support. Analyses and synthesis of the results found that there were both tangible (directly observable) and intangible (unobservable) measures that could be implemented in a staged approach. The direct measures (tangible) could be developed relatively quickly, with greater effort and resources put towards developing measures of the intangible elements. While Defence has some indicators of intangible elements available, such as the DAS, PULSE and ALOQ, the suitability of these measures has not been investigated. Resources would need to be provided to develop these measures further. Workshop participants recognised that due to political pressure and an inherent urgency to act, the focus of cultural change seems to be directed towards the more public/formal indicators of change (i.e. values, behaviour, artefacts, and policy). The question is; is the importance of ‘required’ cultural change being perceived by Defence as fixed largely by policy change? Although policy change is an important step, it is essential to consider both formal/informal and espoused/enacted aspects of culture. In other words, while implementing changes formally (i.e. by changing policy), people will “say“ things that they are expected to say but whether this will actually change their attitudes is another question (Schein, 1992).


UNCLASSIFIED 16

In addition the value of these initiatives needs to be established in order to get support and engagement from the Defence services and the wider Defence organisation. According to Schein (1992), this is where the leaders’ abilities to acknowledge and demonstrate desired behaviours are vital. This becomes a powerful way to communicate and implement the proposed organisational cultural change. Hard work has gone into creating the Pathway to Change initiative and other service specific initiatives, therefore it is important for Defence to both act quickly and to keep the long term organisational cultural change in mind. By providing a forum for sharing of Defence organisational cultural implementation programs, stakeholders’ understanding of Defence organisational culture was explored through group activities that generated critical reflection and examination. Using Pathway to Change as a framework for discussing organisational culture we found that the stakeholders had a sophisticated understanding of the interplay between the Defence sub-culture(s), leadership and the wider Australian culture expectations. It is important that this understanding is shared across the wider Defence community so as to promote a more efficient and effective approach to cultural reform, rather than producing pockets of excellence. 4.1 Workshop reflections

This final section is an opportunity to examine both the utility and shortcomings of the workshop in order to examine what could be sustained, improved and fixed. Sustain: Information sharing in this very topical area is needed in order to properly understand the scope and complexity of the organisational cultural issues facing Defence. The workshop should be recognised as a stepping stone for continuing discussions beyond the Defence Human Sciences Symposium. We need to sustain the relationships generated within the workshop, and build on the shared discussions. Improve: The limitations of the workshop included an ambitious original list of aims, together with a lack of time. The size and complexity of the issue (measuring organisational culture in Defence) meant it was difficult to summarise and discuss within a single three hour session. Thus, the solution would be to extend the time and personnel available for understanding these issues within Defence. Fix: To adequately address this complex area, further forums need to be created to allow for further discussions with key stakeholders.


UNCLASSIFIED 17

5. References

Argyris, C. (2000) Flawed Advice and the Management Trap. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Department of Defence (2012) Pathway to Change: Evolving Defence Culture, Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Drobnjak, M., Stothard, C.F., Talbot, S., Watkins, K., and McDowall, D. (2013) Learning, trust and change within the Australian Army: The development of the Army Learning Organisation Questionnaire (ALOQ) in Anders Ortenblad (Ed) Handbook of Research on The Learning Organization – Adaptation and Context. Edward Elgar Schein, E. H. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd ed. San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass Schein, E.H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Ed, San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass Stothard, C.F. (in preparation) Army Learning Organisation Questionnaire: Developing a reliable and valid measure of a Learning Culture. DSTO-TN-XXXX. Streiner, D.L., and Norman, G.R., (2003) Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Streiner, D.L., and Norman, G.R., (2008) Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 4th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watkins, K. E. (2012) Defence Human Science Symposium: Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop. Adelaide, South Australia. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002) The concept of action learning. The Learning Organization 9 (3) 114-124


UNCLASSIFIED 18



UNCLASSIFIED 19

Appendix A: Initial scope of workshop

The original questions included:

• Is there a common understanding of what is culture in Defence?

• What are the key indicators of a healthy and effective Defence culture?

• Are these indicators the same for Operational Culture and Barracks Culture? Or is there a difference?

• How have various stakeholders and representatives measured Defence culture?

• How do we best gauge the relationship between organisational culture and organisational performance?

• What are some of the challenges faced when measuring, monitoring and applying effective cultural interventions and strategies?

• Who has the overarching responsibility for improving Defence’s culture?

• What research is being conducted to inform current cultural change programs in Defence?

o What are key theoretical frameworks that are being used to measure and monitor culture?

• How do programs of research link to Pathway to Change?

• Are there elements that each one of our work areas could address to improve how Defence measures, monitors and implements effective cultural changes?

Realising that the above questions would require far more time than the original workshop, we refocused on the three issues that would provide a basis for further work.


UNCLASSIFIED 20



UNCLASSIFIED 21

Appendix B: List of Workshop Attendees and Presenters

B.1 Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop Attendees

List of attendees: Agostino, Katerina Arizmendi, Clint Bollard, Lauren BRIG Peter Gates BRIG Marcus Thompson Butavicius, Marcus Chesney, Cate Keane, Therese (replacing SOCOMD: Tim Bussell) Maher, Andy MAJ Ross Cable Martin, David McCormac, Agata Mullins, Karen Newton, Tom Parsons Kathryn LTCOL Anita Rynne LTCOL Michael Say Smith, Michael Thiele. Luke Williams, Kaylene Young, Elise

B.2 Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop Presenters

Workshop facilitators: Prof Karen Watkins Christina Stothard Dr Steven Talbot Tiffany Fischer Mirela Stjelja


UNCLASSIFIED 22

B.3 Presenters:

• RAAF: GPCAPT Margot Forster,

• Adaptive Army: LTCOL Michael Say,

• ADC Reviews Implementation: Mrs Susan Longbottom and Dr Neil Miller

• Defence People Group DSPPR: Dr Jodie Vaile and Ms Rachel Greene

• International: Prof Karen Watkins- Understanding and Measuring Organisational Culture’

B.4 Workshop Structure

B.4.1 Session One – Measuring Organisational culture

The presentations aimed to provide participants with an understanding of the key themes and current organisational cultural programs or initiatives in place within the Defence Services. The first presenter, Professor Karen Watkins, briefly described DSTO ALO’s approach to organisational culture.

• Professor Watkins discussed different nature of organisational culture and past research on measuring organisational culture/learning culture. Discussion also pertained to The Black Review and some ALOQ findings and different measurements and methods in the context of organisational culture (see Appendix B for more information).

The next presenters included Army and Air Force, showing that the Services bring their own concerns to an understanding of organisational culture, which has driven their programs and implementation of organisational culture initiatives.

• Lieutenant Colonel Mick Say presented Army’s current Culture initiatives (for slides refer to Appendix B) such as the current Adaptive Army Program and related measures and methods. Past Army initiatives were also discussed, as well as how the ‘Pathway to Change’ document lead to the Army Cultural Framework.

• The presentation provided by GPCAP Margot Forster, outlined the Air Force’s previous and current culture programs, approaches, metrics and challenges in understanding and measuring organisational culture. Lessons learned included:

o the need for senior leadership buy in,,

o to encourage participation,

o design questionnaires with rank and background accounted for,

o give people time to provide narrative scenarios, and anonymity, and

o the importance of accurate and clear communication and knowledge sharing


UNCLASSIFIED 23

Navy was unable to attend but they have the New Generation Navy program that addresses their aims. B.4.2 Session Two – Changing culture, changing performance

The presentations were intended to provide participants with an understanding of the current activities being conducted in response to the multiple reviews of Defence:

• Mrs Susan Longbottom and Dr Neil Miller gave a summary of a number of cultural reviews that had relevance and recommendations for Australian Defence College and Australian Defence Force Academy. A behavioural change process and some critical success factors for cultural adaptation to occur were also proposed (for more information please refer to Appendix B).

• “Pathway to Change Evolution Framework“ presented by Dr Jodie Vaile and Ms Rachel Greene sparked some important discussion around current issues in defence and the measurement, monitoring and evaluation of ADF culture. It gave an overview of the Pathway to Change strategy, and their role in trying to measure, monitor and evaluate cultural change (refer to Appendix B for more information).

• The group discussions/comments about the issues raised in the presentations are described in the next section, Methods and Activities. At the conclusion of the workshop, the main points were summarised and all the participants were thanked.


UNCLASSIFIED 24



UNCLASSIFIED 25

Appendix C: Workshop PowerPoint slides

C.1 Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop PowerPoint


UNCLASSIFIED 26


UNCLASSIFIED 27


UNCLASSIFIED 28


UNCLASSIFIED 29


UNCLASSIFIED 30


UNCLASSIFIED 31


UNCLASSIFIED 32


UNCLASSIFIED 33


UNCLASSIFIED 34


UNCLASSIFIED 35


UNCLASSIFIED 36


UNCLASSIFIED 37


UNCLASSIFIED 38


UNCLASSIFIED 39


UNCLASSIFIED 40


UNCLASSIFIED 41


UNCLASSIFIED 42


UNCLASSIFIED 43


UNCLASSIFIED 44


UNCLASSIFIED 45


UNCLASSIFIED 46


UNCLASSIFIED 47


UNCLASSIFIED 48


UNCLASSIFIED 49


UNCLASSIFIED 50


UNCLASSIFIED 51

Appendix D: Group Brainstorming Activity

Defence Human Sciences Symposium 2012

Pushing the Boundaries of Human and Organisational Performance 13 -16 November 2012

D.1 WORKSHOP “Organisational Culture and Performance in Defence“

Q: Imagine if you were looking back from perfect, what specifically would be different if you have successfully implemented the Pathways to Change? On the newsprint we will list all of the indicators of success you can identify. Think of both: Objective and subjective indicators of success; Espoused and enacted indications of success. Bucher paper notes – 64 statements were produced. Statements were grouped according to received votes or ‘red dots’ • Greater diversity of thought in leadership (11 dots) • Reduction of mental health issues (7 dots) • Open and fair culture (7 dots) • Clear performance expectations (5 dots) • Leaders who facilitate learning (5 dots) • Legitimate respect ( up & down) (5 dots) • Retain / attract high talent (5 dots) • High trust (5 dots) • Situation – match talent and job (5 dots) • More female leaders (4 dots) • Personal accountability (3 dots) • Have a strategic plan (3 dots) • Knowledge easy to access (3 dots) • No subcultures over Defence culture (3 dots) • Diversity is valued (3 dots) • People want to belong / feel included (3 dots). • Commonality of language (2 dots) • Simplify (2 dots)


UNCLASSIFIED 52

• Communication (up & down) (2 dots) • Forgiveness of mistakes (2 dots) • Multiple definitions of ‘good’ (2 dots) • Sound management practices (2 dots) • Redundancy (2 dots) • Less bureaucratization (2 dots) • Supportive culture for getting the job done (2 dots) • Outcome focused versus process (2 dots) • Make use of informal networks (2 dots) • Respect ( up & down) 1 dot • Greater competitions for jobs (1 dot) • Interdepartmental connectedness (1 dot) • Less scandals (published events) (1 dot) • Succession planning ( 1 dot) • Stronger perception of support (1 dot) • Motivated to speak and act (1 dot) • Have strategic plan (1 dot) • Recognition (1 dot) • More resilience (1 dot) • Respect for technical expertise (1 dot) • Ask why regardless of rank (1 dot) • Stronger individual commitment (1 dot) • Familiarity with vision (clear vision) (1dot)

Other: • Cultural volunteers • Greater political credibility • Firm and fair response to different behaviour • Gender neutrality • Not gender blindness • Informal conversations in more positive climate • Genuine equality across organisation • No more / less risk aversion • Creative problem solvers • Creating knowledge • Career development • Reduced need for dispute resolution services • Consistent directions • No more glass ceilings • Increased flexibility • Know what have to do


UNCLASSIFIED 53

• Greater competition • No more cynicism • Collaboration across sections • Reward moral courage • Reduced absenteeism • Innovation is encouraged • More efficient practice

Page classification: UNCLASSIFIED

DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA 1. PRIVACY MARKING/CAVEAT (OF DOCUMENT)

2. TITLE Post-Activity Report: DHSS Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop 2012

3. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (FOR UNCLASSIFIED REPORTS THAT ARE LIMITED RELEASE USE (L) NEXT TO DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION) Document (U) Title (U) Abstract (U)

4. AUTHOR(S) Christina Stothard, Tiffany Fischer, Mirela Stjelja, Maya Drobnjak and Steven Talbot

5. CORPORATE AUTHOR DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation PO Box 1500 Edinburgh South Australia 5111 Australia

6a. DSTO NUMBER DSTO-TN-1212

6b. AR NUMBER AR-015-734

6c. TYPE OF REPORT Technical Note

7. DOCUMENT DATE August 2013

8. FILE NUMBER -

9. TASK NUMBER ARM08/036

10. TASK SPONSOR COMD LWDC

11. NO. OF PAGES 53

12. NO. OF REFERENCES 10

13. DOWNGRADING/DELIMITING INSTRUCTIONS N/A

14. RELEASE AUTHORITY Chief, Land Operations Division

15. SECONDARY RELEASE STATEMENT OF THIS DOCUMENT

Approved for public release OVERSEAS ENQUIRIES OUTSIDE STATED LIMITATIONS SHOULD BE REFERRED THROUGH DOCUMENT EXCHANGE, PO BOX 1500, EDINBURGH, SA 5111 16. DELIBERATE ANNOUNCEMENT No Limitations 17. CITATION IN OTHER DOCUMENTS Yes 18. DSTO RESEARCH LIBRARY THESAURUS Organisation, Culture Change, Defence organisation, Organisational Culture, The Organisational Culture and Performance workshop, held during the Defence Human Science Symposium (2012), provided a forum for discussing the challenges associated with identifying an ideal organisational culture in Defence, and then measuring such a culture. This post-activity report summarises the outcomes of the workshop hosted by the DSTO Army Learning Organisation (ALO) team. Professor Karen Watkins (University of Georgia) facilitated the workshop (applying Action Learning principles) to generate critical reflection and questioning of Defence organisational culture. The workshop highlighted the complexity of defining an aspirational organisational culture (given culture has both intangible and tangible elements). The tangible elements of organisational culture can be measured directly. Developing measures for the intangible, more abstract elements would require more effort (expertise, time and resources). Both elements are needed to generate a full understanding in order to track Defence organisational culture towards its aspirational state. The stakeholders also identified the importance of collaboration and active information and knowledge sharing in order to generate a Defence wide understanding of this area. Finally, we offer some reflections on the limitations of the workshop design.

Page classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Documents

Post-Activity Report: DHSS Organisational Culture and ... UNCLASSIFIED . Post-Activity Report: DHSS Organisational Culture and Performance Workshop . Christina Stothard, Mirela Stjelja,